[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA

[Scott Leibrand]

Cliff,

Thanks for your comments.

I believe I addressed this issue in the Rationale section of the policy 
proposal, but I'm not sure if I was completely clear.  Let me outline 
how I intended this to work:

    * If you have a /24, and are using it for multihoming, that should
      be considered efficient use, so you should be able to bring the
      /24 under an RSA and get an IPv6 PI block.
    * If you have anything larger than a /24, and are utilizing less
      than half of it, you should return as much of it as necessary (by
      bisecting your block, returning half of it, and repeating as
      necessary) to bring your usage up above 50%.  The remaining block
      can then be brought under an RSA, and you can receive an IPv6 PI
      block.


Would that work for you?  If not, why not?  If so, do you believe that 
the Rationale is sufficient guidance to ARIN as to how to evaluate 
"efficient utilization" in this context, or do you think the policy 
proposal requires clarification?

Thanks for the feedback,
Scott

Cliff Bedore wrote:
> If I understand this proposal correctly, I cannot support it as written.
>  
> It says
>  
> "To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
>  
> 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or 
> allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or
> demonstrate efficient utilization of a direct IPv4 assignment or 
> allocation covered by a current ARIN RSA."
>  
> As I understand this proposal, it is an attempt to get legacy v4 holders 
> to come in under the ARIN umbrella and get started on v6.  I could not 
> find an exact definition of efficient utilization" but I think many 
> (most?) of the legacy people not under an RSA might not qualify under 
> that criteria.  I expect that most of the legacy holders who have not 
> had to sign an RSA with ARIN for additional space are 
> companies/businesses that haven't had to grow to the point where they 
> would meet the "efficient utilization" criteria.  At the time these v4s 
> were issued, we had 3 choices.  a Class A (/8), Class B(/16) or Class 
> C(/24).  Except for the smallest of us home office types, most people 
> estimated optimistically and got a bigger space than they needed. 
> (Remember at that time, the internet was "infinite".)  Those who morphed 
> to ISPs and needed more later had to come under an RSA as they grew.  
> The rest were relatively static and most probably didn't grow to 
> "efficiently" fill the address space they were given.  Since most of the 
> ones who grew eventually came under an RSA, the group this policy 
> proposal is aimed at would not be covered by it without having to trade 
> in their existing v4 space or in the case of Class C/24s couldn't keep 
> their /24.  There certainly seems to be no incentive for them to come in 
> from the cold and many reasons not to  As a result, I don't see where 
> this proposal as written will accomplish its stated goal and thus should 
> not be adopted.
>
> Perhaps if it were worded "are actively using the legacy space", that 
> would encourage more to join.  I'm not sure what would be done with the 
> /8s if they were using the equivalent of a /16 or less but if that were 
> case, they might be able to give back some of the /8 without requiring 
> any renumbering.
>
> As an example, I have a /24 and have 15-30 devices on my network.  This 
> might grow in the future but probably not to 128   Under existing and 
> this proposed policy, I don't believe I would qualify for PI v6 space 
> and thus see no reason to be in favor of it. (and frankly not much 
> reason to continue to read through the sometimes prolific traffic on the 
> group :-) ).  I expect many of the mis-sent unsubscribe messages that 
> have shown up were sent by those in a similar situation.
>
> Cliff
>
> --
> Cliff Bedore
> 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
> cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
> Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>